Some readers, still swayed by the current orthodoxy, are a little puzzled by the argument that government policies that bring about increased consumption come at the expense of economic growth (capital accumulation). The classical economists fully understood that economic growth was forgone consumption, meaning that investment, spending on capital goods, can only take place by directing resources away from consumption. It follows that the reverse must be true. Promoting consumption at the expense of savings results in resources being redirected from investment.

Unfortunately, policy-makers, not to mention a huge number of economists, genuinely believe that increasing the demand for consumer goods, by whatever means, will raise profits and thereby raise the demand for more capital goods which in turn would lead to an increased demand for labour. This Alice-in-Wonderland thinking (meaning the Keynesian multiplier) leads to the absurd conclusion that massively raising the spending power of the unemployed would generate enormous growth.

Moody’s Mark Zandi actually argued this when he stated that “the bang for the buck is very high” from extended jobless benefits and would yield $1.64 of GDP. It didn’t take long for fellow Democrats to jump on his magic wagon, with Pelosi claiming that $1 spent on food stamps yielded $1.79 of GDP. But this is not how derived demand works, as any Austrian economist would immediately point out. The problem here is a complete failure to grasp the real nature of demand, including derived demand. Like the classical economists the Austrians argue that demand springs from production: that production, meaning supplies, is what really constitutes demand.

This brings us back to investment. The Austrian school of economics stresses that increased investment lengthens1 the capital structure which increases the future flow of goods hence raising real wages and consumption. Within this insight lies the concept of the balance between savings (investment) and consumption. This concept should never be lost sight of. So long as the real savings-consumption ratio is maintained living standards will continue to rise.

I think that any discussion of the savings-consumption ratio must be accompanied by an explanation, no matter how brief, of the Austrian theory of the trade cycle. After all, it was the experience of the Great Depression that led to the present economic orthodoxy. The Austrians argue that credit expansion disturbs the balance and generates the business cycle2. The problem starts when monetary policy throws the savings-consumption ratio out of kilter by generating a boom. If the boom is allowed to continue consumption eventually begins to rise relative to investment spending. The effect will be to create a profits squeeze in the higher stages of production causing manufacturing to contract. As Hayek put it, the higher stages become unprofitable

not because the demand for consumption goods is too small, but on the contrary because it is too large and too urgent to render the execution of lengthy roundabout processes profitable3.

In fact, even if savings were increased their beneficial effects could be more than cancelled out by an increased demand for consumer goods [ibid, pp. 228-33]. Raising the demand for consumption goods relative to producer goods causes non-specific factors to shift to the lower stages of production, those close to the consumption stage. Now these factors, like all factors, are complementary, meaning that they have to be used in cooperation with other factors. Shifting non-specific factors from one line of production to another therefore sees the abandonment of specific factors, factors that only have one function.

This causes excess capacity to emerge as the shift towards consumption increases. Even though employment would fall in manufacturing the employment level could still be kept comparatively steady by the increased demand for labour in the lower stages of production. As this process gets underway labour costs in the economy rise even as manufacturing employment falls. This is the final stage of the boom. Now the final stage was so well documented in the nineteenth century that Marx was able to attack Rodbertus’s underconsumption theory of the trade cycle by stressing that

crises are precisely always preceded by a period in which wages-rise generally and the working class actually get a larger share of the annual product intended for consumption4.

Unfortunately economic thinking has now deteriorated to the point that one of the major economic fallacies the classical economists refuted is now presented on a daily basis in universities, colleges and the media as an irrefutable fact. The result is that governments the world over are implementing policies that direct economic activity to increased consumption at the expense of gross investment. As the Austrians are forever pointing out, it is gross investment, expenditure on all future-goods factors, that maintain the capital structure: not net investment or consumer spending

We are thus left with the conclusion that fighting a recession by encouraging consumption will prolong and perhaps even deepen it5. One thing is certain from an Austrian perspective: if the critical point is reached where increased consumption spending continues to drive down gross investment then real wages must eventually fall if the phenomenon of permanent widespread unemployment is to be avoided.

1When Austrians speak of lengthening the capital structure they are not suggesting that stages of production will be continuously added to the structure ad infinitum, as some critics seem to think. The lengthening of investment periods does not always require more stages of production. In some cases a lengthening simply involves the replacement of existing stages with more advanced but more time consuming stages. I stressed the addition of more stages to emphasise the importance of the stages of production analysis. Failure to grasp this importance and the vital role of Austrian capital theory is why R. G. Hawtrey and Keynes were completely surprised by the arrival of the Great Depression.

2If the savings-consumption ratio is driven out of balance then what the classical economists called disproportionalities will be created. The classical economists linked the emergence of disproportionalities directly to the idea of circulating capital being converted into fixed capital. James Wilson, founder of the Economist, discussed this issue in his magazine. The article in question was later published in his book Capital, Currency and Banking as Article XI, The Crisis, The Money Market. Wilson’s opinion that “railway mania” caused excess investment by converting circulating capital into fixed capital was supported by John Stuart Mill (Principles of Political Economy, Vol. II, University of Toronto Press, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1965, p. 543.) Colonel Torrens was also in full agreement, stating that “[t]he railways were rapidly absorbing the circulating capital of the country, and outbidding commerce in the discount market”. (The Principles and Practical Operation of Peel’s Act of 1844 Explained and Defended, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, and Roberts, 1857, p. 74.) The stress on real factors means that these discussions came tantalisingly close to anticipating the Austrian theory of the trade cycle.

5I have had numerous exchanges with Keynesians over the years on this particular point. They argued that post-WWII recoveries from recessions refuted the Austrians. This only proves that Keynesians have never read the Austrians because what they cite as evidence against the Austrian view actually supports it. The Austrians stand with the classical economists when they say that driving down the rate of interest encourages business spending. This is exactly what Keynesians argue, except they refuse to recognise that the policy ends badly. That there are circumstances where lower rates do not trigger business spending is a fact that Austrians are also aware of. The point remains that this criticism of the Austrians does not even dent their trade cycle theory.

I base my judgements on what the right does. If it stays silent I take it for granted that Gerry is right. But I still want debates on gerrys stuff because ultimately it is the only way to determine whether these Austrians are right or not

Nottrampis is missing the point. Gerry stated very simply that demand comes from production. This makes perfect sense to me. Elsewhere Gerry pointed out that “production is the source of demand, not consumption. This would be self-evident in a barter economy.” He also said that, “Unfortunately the emergence of money has cast a veil over this fundamental fact.” http://www.brookesnews.com/092906gdp.html
It’s I read Brookesnews that I consider myself better informed on these matters than someone who relies on Catallaxy or the Institute of public Affairs.

I read the article so I now know what nottrampis means. In a barter economy the farmer, the carpenter and so on must first produce something if they want to consume what someone else produced otherwise they must do without. But once they have money the farmer and carpenter don’t have to produce if they want to consume. Brilliant!!!!

Gerry publishes more history and economics than the Catallaxy crowd and the jealous John Humphreys has to pull out his tiny blowpipe to try and bring the man down. Humprhesy screams that he has an economics degree. I bet he’s a brain surgeon too. Humphreys is the idiot who said a carbon tax would be “costless”! Good grief. This genius also used his brilliant understanding of economics to argue that a carbon tax would generate marvellous new technologies that would save us. And he has the bloody nerve to smear Gerry. Gerry destroyed his stupid little paper and exposed him as a useless and incompetent excuse for an economist.

It’s time for Wacko Humphreys to be asked the $64,000 questions–again.

When are you going to call Steve Kates a liar for telling people he read the classical economists when he has not? When are going to call him out for giving the left cover to attack capitalism? When are you going to call out the lying Sinclair Davidson for screwing up the history of Australia in the Great Depression and then turning yellow on it?

I will simply say I do enjoy reading about a subject from someone I disagree . At least the person here has put an effort in which is more than you can say for Catallaxy.
They still think the NBN is not on the Country’s balance sheet. Something that could only occur if one NEVER read the Budget papers.

for shame Gerry. One article a week!!
David Glasner’s blog is one always worth reading!!

The tea lady where I work who left school at 15 told me she has never bothered to read anything. What’s funny about this is that she knows a lot more economics than John Humphreys. I don’t find that at all amazing.

Nottrampis understands that the great thing about this blog is that Gerry backs up his arguments. Agree with him or not, you will always know on what he bases his argument on. Catallaxy is the opposite. Sinclair Davidson makes a statement and if you don’t agree you are an idiot. He never seems to back anything up. Steve Kates is the same. It’s always Says law followed by Say’s law again. Then we have Keynesianism is stupid but they never tell us why. They are even sloppy with their fact. Gerry has pointed out their mistakes but they refuse to correct them.

There’s something else Sherlock. catallaxy doesn’t allow debates. OMG, if they had debates they might lose one that’s why they pretend Gerry didn’t write anything about the classical economists or the great depression.

I confess, Nottrampis: I am horribly ashamed of not posting more often. In my own defence, however, I find that being in my 70s means I can no longer maintain the sort of effort that kept Brookesnews going. Furthermore, the mistress of the house adamantly insists that I follow my doctor’s orders and take it easy. (At least my blood pressure is now under control). Nevertheless, I hope to improve the number of postings early next year.